It is well known that fences of the type used in residential and commercial settings are susceptible to the growth of vegetation, such as weeds and grass, below their lower edges and around their support posts. This growth is generally considered to be aesthetically unappealing, and removal of this growth is time consuming and arduous work. Therefore, various barriers have been suggested for placement directly beneath the lower edge of a fence in order to inhibit vegetation growth, with each addressing to some extent the requirement that a suitable barrier be adaptive to the dimensional variability of such fences. For example, the spacing between the posts used to support a fence may differ based on preference or human error. Secondly, the external dimensions and shapes of the support posts often differ. While conventional round posts for chainlink fences are typically either 15/8 inches or 21/2 inches in diameter, larger or square posts may be preferred at the corners of the fence line in order to provide the additional support required. This high degree of variability has substantially frustrated attempts to create a standard barrier configuration that can be used with the majority of residential and commercial fences, such as chainlink fences.
For example, U.S. Pat. No. 3,806,096 to Eccleston et al. suggest a vegetation barrier that has a two-piece design including an outer shell and an inner core completely surrounded by the outer shell. The two-piece design allows for the outer shell to be telescopically displaced relative to the inner core such that the length of the barrier can be appropriately adjusted to the spacing between the fence posts. Though the barrier to Eccleston et al. allows for different distances between posts, it has several shortcomings. First, the portion of the inner core residing within the outer shell after installation serves no purpose, resulting in wasted material. Secondly, the outer shell receives and supports the inner core during and after installation, requiring that the outer shell be formed with sufficiently thick walls capable of supporting the weight of the inner core. Finally, a significant drawback of this barrier is its lack of adaptability to different post sizes and cross-sectional shapes. Though the barrier to Eccleston et al. provides a slot adapted to receive a pole, the slot is sized for a single post diameter, necessitating that the slot be widened by the installer in order to accommodate larger posts, while the use of smaller posts will undesirably form a gap with the post that permits vegetation growth between the slot and post. Furthermore, the barrier cannot be effectively employed to inhibit vegetation growth around corner posts due to the inability to overlap the outer shell or inner core of one section with that of an adjoining section of the barrier.
Another telescoping-type vegetation barrier is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,515,373 to Abbe. The barrier taught by Abbe lies flat under the fence to prevent the growth of vegetation in a manner similar to the barrier of Eccleston et al. Though use of Abbe's barrier does not result in material waste to the extent of Eccleston et al., significant shortcomings remain. Similar to Eccleston et al., Abbe's barrier does not allow for a single design to be securely attached to posts of differing sizes. Nor is Abbe's barrier well suited for use around corner posts for the same reasons stated for that of Eccleston et al. Further, the barrier is installed within a furrow, which greatly increases the labor required for installation.
Yet another telescoping barrier is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,822,864 to Keys. This barrier has a U-shaped cross-section that enables the gap between the lower edge of the fence and the ground to be reduced with a minimal amount of material. Though Keys's barrier has slots of identical widths but differing depths, the slots do not permit different post sizes to be accommodated, and therefore do not overcome the shortcomings of the barrier devices noted above. Furthermore, while Keys recognizes the necessity to accommodate corner posts, his solution is to employ specially shaped segments whose ends have a diagonal edge in order to allow the adjacent ends to abut along their edges. However, in doing so, Keys requires the use of specialized sections that complicate the manufacturing, ordering and installation of the barrier.
The difficulty with which a single barrier configuration can be designed for use as-manufactured to work with different post sizes and to be adapted for use with corner posts is apparent from the above. This difficulty is further evidenced by U.S. Pat. No. 3,393,897 to Wright, U.S. Pat. No. 4,497,472 to Johnson, U.S. Pat. No. 4,548,388 to Cobler, U.S. Pat. No. 4,903,947 to Groves, U.S. Pat. No. 5,178,369 to Syx and U.S. Pat. No. 5,328,156 to Hoke, all of which disclose vegetation barriers that do not accommodate different sized fence posts in the as-manufactured condition in a manner that optimizes ground coverage to prevent vegetation growth. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that, in view of the considerations noted above, a single barrier configuration that is sufficiently versatile to be usable with differing fence dimensions would be highly desirable. In particular, a barrier that allows for variability in post spacings and widths without resulting in gaps that permit vegetation growth between the barrier and fence posts would be desirable.